1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate, while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat.
2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on his interview [2] with Piketty and Piketty essentially conceded the point.
Tyler implied therefore that the natural conclusion is Georgism[3]
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-fall...
[2] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/thomas-piketty/
[3] http://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal#a-brief-rec...
Also, non sequitur: while I enjoyed A Brief History of Equality, I feel that it tried to stuff too much historical detail into so short a work - it reads a bit like a condensed version of Capital and Ideology. I found the most enlightening parts of Piketty's previous works involved the tracing of political and economic minutiae across time and space, and I'm not sure I would have actually enjoyed A Brief History of Equality if I didn't already have that background.
"PIKETTY: If you look at the top of the wealth distribution, I don’t see a lot of real estate. I don’t think Matt Rognlie or anyone is saying that the huge rise in billionaire wealth in the US has anything to do with real estate. As far as I know, nobody has ever tried to put this theory on the table.
"I’m not saying real estate is not important. I think for middle-class assets and lower-middle-class and upper-middle-class assets — for the middle of the distribution — real estate is, of course, very important. The movement in real estate prices explains a lot of what’s going on, both in terms of aggregate value and distribution. I’m not saying it’s not important. It is very important.
"If you go back to our paper with Gabriel Zucman, which was published, now, almost 10 years ago in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2014, called “Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700–2010,” you will see, we have complete decomposition about the role of real estate in aggregate wealth accumulation, and it’s absolutely central for many countries over many periods of time."
He’s still just one man. There’s no need to listen to him.
I’d rather listen to the majority who are being fleeced by thought ending men like Rognlie. “Oh but don’t think to change things; see look here is other math!”
Humans don’t exist in a vacuum of externalities; Rognlies advice makes it seem so. Fidgeting with the numbers doing nothing real for the people in need is no different than “thoughts and prayers”.
Story mode still rules, as we keep setting aside work of value to people for the story of how some people earned their status. I don’t care what Rognlies credentials are; he’s one of seven billion.
I applied my masters in elastic structures to design power distribution equipment for people. Rognlie sits and pontificates. Screw him.
although the language of that Brookings article is obscure ( possibly deliberately )
it seems like he's nitpicking rather than acknowledging something's deeply wrong.
plus it's strange the way he quotes himself in 3rd person in the article he himself wrote
That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.
That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.
For an overview and references, see:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Meritocracy_trap
I am one of those people who certainly missed the boat due to my own missteps, mistakes, lack of motivation
But let's talk about those who don't/didn't have the favourable circumstances and opportunities I had/have
Is not being able to afford / be-accepted-for a life changing college degree that person's fault 50% of the time ? is it their parents' fault ? is it the grandparents' fault that the parents weren't better off ? if so ... where does this blame game stop ? at some point govt/society needs to step in and give you a boost regardless of your background
debatably, inheritance & land ownership are well executed systemic conspiracies
mistakes, missteps, lack of motivation, are all fine - but "lack of ability" ? you're arguing against yourself there - if there is such a thing as lack of ability - that's certainly a terrible reason to disqualify a person from having their basic needs met
We now see this kind of thing even infecting our education system, and it's driving a lot of liberal people to the political right. Look at how Asian American voters acted in the recent San Francisco school board recall, for example. (Also: try telling those people that their success in our society is due to luck, even though they came here in poverty and were discriminated against every step of the way...)
The idea is that we want the system to be more meritocratic, and that a good place to start is to acknowledge that it's currently not as meritocratic as we tend to think. That's what the "meritocratic trap" is: thinking we have meritocracy when we don't.
That was always reductionist. Many emigres from China, Japan, Korea, USSR states, the Middle East and India arrived with high education levels. For 20th century society, where war could blow up or seize all your assets, education you ship with you in your brain is wealth that matters. Lots of uneducated people left behind in those countries, they just died or their life sucks now.
That said, I do wonder if we're looking at inequality (or more specifically hierarchy) through the wrong lens. It seems like almost all independent societies naturally develop some sort of hierarchy (chief, priest, leader) without any outside influence. To me that points to some underlying natural law or at least a biologically-influenced tendency that higher level social constructs will be ineffective at changing.
- If you don't allow foreigners, I'll argue that you haven't solved anything. You've simple picked the winners.
- If the ratio of inequality is disrupted, I'd also argue you haven't done anything other than move the problem (and the losers) to the future.
- If you decide not to redistribute, well that's the current situation for better or worse.
Personally I think a better problem to solve is for humanity in general to decide what the minimum level of prosperity should be, worldwide and slowly try to raise this bar. AFAIK this is basically what we're doing. We could raise the bar faster, though.
Policy is decided, implemented and evaluated on the level of societies, not on a global level. We have no global government, and the only global cooperation is voluntary, with wealth redistribution only happening as much as one society arbitrarily chooses to spend on charity and foreign aid for another. Social policies are not implemented worldwide but rather by some society for its own benefit, and if some policy makes a society successful, that's a great policy for that society. Leaders in democratic societies are accountable to people of their society about ensuring that their needs, desires and choices get met, they are not accountable to humanity in general but rather the people they represent, and in general these voters give a very limited mandate to sacrifice prosperity of their society to "raise the bar" of worldwide prosperity. If the society chooses to make policies that benefit everyone else, great, but if it does not, then the policy is good if and only if it fits the choices of that particular society. We can make a strong argument that there is a moral imperative not to harm other societies, however, ignoring them is an acceptable 'default' state of noninterference.
If doing something allows you to "pick winners" so that all of your society are winners, that would be great (certainly better than what we have now) and would have effectively solved things that matter for that society, even if it does not extend to the world beyond its borders.
And doesn’t that institution also bear the responsibility of the generational social and cultural impacts?
Does wealth redistribution reach stasis at a standard of living that is lower than is currently achievable? Does the golden goose eventually stop laying eggs?
Social engineering experiments can have many unforeseeable impacts - both good and bad. There is no guarantee that the ultimate results will be better than the starting conditions.
Whatever is done, it should be done slowly and under controlled conditions so that the impacts can be measured.
( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )
See for example the French Revolution. Millions of unnecessary deaths due to political repression and wars. And then, 80 years after it all started, finally achieving democracy. All because those in charge at any given moment cared more about their ideas than people.
If you think we can achieve utopia if only everyone signs on to your wonderful idea, it's a sign that you are not only wrong, but should seriously seek counseling.
2. Elimination of usury applied to the money supply of the country in question. That is, issuing money without having a central bank charge interest on the issuance.
I am sure there are more.
https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/norways-sovereign-...
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and...
There’s not a radical solution where something bold needs to be done. There’s a lot of mundane progress that needs to be done, but before it’s done it needs to be identified and prioritized.
Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.
Why? It is non-obvious to me that we should have a collective say in why the rich become rich.
It feels like trust fund babies are pretty much everything that the US is not supposed to be about. Whenever I'm in a mood to discuss politics and someone brings up the "death tax" I say something like: "I agree, the world absolutely needs more people like Paris Hilton." (Not to pick on Paris Hilton, but I think that she's a visible example that people resonate with.)
